"Existential purpose?"

Fuck yea~! I'll buy your book! But now, more coffee...

 

More coffee and CAKE

 

Sartre did write that because there is no proof of god, we have to take responsibility for what God would do, and make life as good as possible for everyone.

I think that it was a reaction to the objectivist conclusions of the philosophies that came before it, and for that matter, to the horrors of World War I and II in a declining Europe. So it represented a focus on the subjective---a return to the individual. It denied essentialism because the objectivist conclusions of essentialism created the mindless cogs of the authoritarian states that were rising up in Europe, and the pawns of the church; the idea that we have a nature or essence that traps us into a role and type. They felt it important to resolve the encroaching nihilism of the modern world, even if that resolution was embracing it. Existentialism dealt with step 1--to free the individual and give him diginity in the context of his actual position in life.

I agree with you here, except that I don't think we need an opposite rearing an ugly head. The reaction to existentialism---the opposite that came out, was structuralism, and this once again shifted focus to an obejctive reality taking away the subjective--the individual. Perhaps that was the ugly head. This led to deconstruction, which reflects the postmodern nihilism around us. I think we are at a stage where we need deconstruction of so many things---religion, objectivism, dualism...

But what is the opposite that should come out of this? If we return to subjectivism, which is where the human heart, the individual, freedom, where all of that is--then what is opposite of existentialism?

A new kind of essentialism---one that acknowledges existential freedom. That returns meaning and value to life and the individual. A new kind of striving towards authenticity. The failings of existentialism lie in the problem that logically it could argue only for a materialist world---that logically there was no valid rational argument for a nonphysical or spiritual reality. A solely material world is ultimately meaningless and absurd, because, as Liebniz pointed out, there is no answer to the deepest questions of Why. So what dignity, authenticity, and freedom could the individual have in an absurd meaningless world?

Yet, even Heidegger said the answer to nihilism lies within the void. Today, we have quantum mechanics, and while scientists dogmatically stick to quantum mechanics as a materialist science, there is so much to it that suggests a nonphysical reality. What is quantum information, if not the very hidden essence that Sartre denied? In terms of our physical dimensions where does the probability wave exist? Sure we can measure it. When your are within the range of a radio station, for example, you can pick up its signal. But everything we use to measure or locate a wave, is dependent on a physical particle---a photon on an antenna, or a photon on a solar cell, or a photon on a biological cell. We can never actually measure the wave as the wave-in-itself, just as you cannot see a radio wave, or a light wave (that's right, the only light you see is the photons--a physical particle--hitting the vision cells in your eye. If the light is moving in any other direction, you would never see it, unless it is reflecting off of dust or particles in the atmosphere. The wave is not really there until we observe it, or it interacts with other particles, which, would otherwise also be waves. From the context of our material world, the wave is in the void. It is in dimensions other than our three physical dimensions. And yet they have an intentional object--the quantum information they represent has an intended particle to which it manifests. There is meaning, value, and truth in this manifestation, which happens in the face of cosmic randomness.

Anyway, that is what I am working on, a philosophy I have labeled as Archephenomenalism.

 

It's a little over my head.

I think it's a joy to contemplate truth. But I also think that all assertions about reality are unnecessary complications.

I think the simplest truth is communication, between people as well as whatever unidentifiable truths are out there.

Light hitting your eyes I identify as communication, for instance. Gnosis is very simply the state of being aware.

Everything else, the naming of things, is sorcery, in my eyes, mind manipulating matter. And I don't mean any negative connotation.

As to the physical, that's kind of a loaded word.

I'm surface level compared to you, though. I'd like to be the ref instead of a fighter.

But yeah, all you have to do to deconstruct materialism is receive the best answer thought has given us to what the physical is.

The truth is, we're still trying to figure out what the physical is. No one can claim it as pointing in the direction of any philosophy.

I ultimately would say you can't get to a sufficient truth that's more satisfactory than the sheer poetry of being.

The actual truth can't be measured or quantified; it's the abstraction of literally everything.

And everything relates in some fashion to everything else and is self-evident, and being so is the true ultimate answer we try to define, but can't possibly capture. It's uncontainable and it's own most authentic description.

In my opinion the next step for humanity is to fall in love with mystery and admit the reason we tinker with reality is not for any more profound reason than the fascinating joy of it.

To give up trying to figure it all out and at once delve into deeper exploration. This place is magic.

Quantum mechanics, too, is tinkering that takes itself too seriously. Base reality is ineffable, mind and matter cannot be distinguished. It seems sensible to me that there would be a void of incompatibility. Because what we're dealing with can neither be defined as a phantasm or the illusion of something fixed. Gray area, gray matter.

 

Boy! Did anyone even read how I used the word clitoris to refer to the concept of taking a word and changing the meaning to fit your own elitist usage?

 

I read it, but in the wreckage of my mind could scarcely glean its profundity.

But that is a topic I'm interested in as late.

The careless way the sensation of words are assigned definitions.

That'll be my mantra for tonight...

Clitoris...
Clitoris...

 

If it rubs right, it may get shared with all kinds of people. But some people think that it is theirs and theirs alone, and don't want to share it, or may only share it with a close friend or a few random people. Sometimes it gets shared without the person knowing it...

 

If what gets rubbed right? Excuse me.

It seems you're prescient of things I have no comprehension of as yet, such as wavelengths of light. I'm not sure that there even is such a thing as a wavelength of light, or if that is just a placeholder for mathematical constructs.

 

Sexual Angst is something the Existentialists don't talk about.